So, just got back from Confirmation. (Supposed to be changing clothes as we speak, so we can leave and attend a party for one of the confirmandi, but leave that aside for a few moments.)
Ahem.
"Praise" music is, to be blunt, not created equal. There is, in fact, a distinct hierarchy within the realm, which runs as follows:
1. Most Crappy
2. Less Crappy
3. Least Crappy
4. Genuinely Good Music
A song need not be in Latin, or be 1000 years old, or have been composed by a monk in order to be beautiful, sacred, or orthodox. However, the percentages of modern music which fall under the above categories are, well, not encouraging. Roughly 80% of music composed for Catholic liturgical use within the last 40 years is Category 1 music. Another 17% is Category 2. Draw your own conclusions.
Granted, as our wise friend Father L said just the other day, "there was abuse before 1960. What you heard in Mass was indistinguishable from what you heard at the opera, except that no operas were being sung in Latin. All we've done, in many cases, is trade old kitsch for new kitsch." I don't point fingers. I put them in my ears.
How can people who are clearly trained musicians stand to even sing some of this stuff? It really, genuinely, isn't any good. They wouldn't play a 17th century piano ballade if it weren't any good, would they? I mean, we've all heard of Chopin, but who was Frederick Albinez? My point exactly.
Just ranting. I'm in a hurry, my ears are still ringing, and the baby is crying. Must change clothes. Keep opinion to oneself. Hope that the choir member who introduced herself to me this morning doesn't make good on her offer (threat?) to come sing at the Latin Mass.
Just curious: where did you get your statistics?
ReplyDelete